Following are a few deliberations from one of the most prominent philosophers of our time. Karl Raimund Popper is one of the most recognized theorists about perception. With his work "Objective Perceptions" he advanced the theory about perceptions, in relation to the sciences, enormously.[2] Popper splits our world in to three unrelated portions: World one, world two and world three. As world one he understands the real world that exists around us, I will call it Reality.

World two he classifies as the world we think is real, but, because of our faulty perception, it is not reality, only a distorted picture of it. Therefore, we have as many worlds two, which I will call Actual Fact, as there are recognizing species on this world. The ability to recognize has limits for all beings, including humans, for two reasons. First, it is impossible, with our limited senses, to understand everything that goes on around us, and second, our biological nature, genetic as psychic, prevents us from absorbing all impressions totally and without prejudice. It is therefore impossible to know with certainty, if beings, including humans, are capable of grasping reality completely and veraciously. Technical devices do not help, since we can not be sure if these devices are capable of grasping reality better then our senses, and we have to again rely on our prejudiced sense of interpretation to be certain. What we register is an image of reality through the filter of our faulty senses and in the surrealism of our psyche and this then becomes our individual reality. Although there is only one reality, there are as many interpretations of it as there are living beings. It is possible that we, either by accident our through learning, understand a portion of reality. However, because of our faulty perception mechanism we can never be certain.

In light of this fact it is principally impossible, to claim to possess final, definitive factual evidence about any thesis regarding reality, because we can never be certain to know all the characteristics of reality and to have interpreted them correctly. This dilemma, in its radical form, not to be able to distinguish between wrong or obviously correct knowledge about reality, can lead to irrationality. Therefore, the declaration of a lunatic about any aspect of reality would have the same weight as that of a scientist, namely none. Popper solved this problem by admitting, that we can never produce the definitive factual evidence of a thesis, but we can proof its incorrectness.[3] Therefore, we have to assume any theses about reality to be correct, until we succeed in proofing it wrong. Because of this, it is possible that a theses about reality, until now not discredited, is true, but we can never be certain. It is therefore possible that a until now not discredited thesis about reality is true, but we can not be sure. To test the correctness of a thesis, we need to continually try to discredit it, therefore the argumentation against the correctness of a thesis must be the Alpha and Omega of theoretical and practical science. Popper writes on page 82:

"The method of sciences is the method of bold supposition and to try inventively and earnestly to discredit same."

Next page:

"We can never be absolutely sure that our thesis is untenable. We have to do everything in our power to search for any amount of untruth in our theses. We do this by trying to disprove it, in other words, we must test it with all our objective knowledge and inventiveness."

To try to disallow the discrediting of a thesis "with all the necessary inventiveness" would be the end of science.

To be able to criticize theories, it is essential to put the theories and the critique of them into a format, so it can be objectively understood by third parties, i.e. in the form of speech or writing. These unambigously set down, objectified theories about our world, right or wrong, and the effort to disprove them, sum up Poppers world three.

Popper argues, the difference between humans and animals is the conscientious attempt by humans to find mistakes so he can eliminate them:

"The main difference between Einstein and a amoeba ( as defined by Jennings)[29] is, Einstein makes a conscientious effort to eliminate mistakes. He tries to disprove his theories: He is consciously aware of them and tries to formulate them as precise as possible. The amoeba by contrast, can not act critically towards its expectations and hypothesis, because it can not picture them. They are a part of it. (One can only criticize objective perceptions; subjective perceptions can be criticized only if it becomes objective, and that happens when we articulate it, especially by writing it down or printing it.)" (p. 25)

In other words: The only qualitative differences between humans and animals are, humans can objectify their theories about reality by writing them down; animals, by contrast, are unable to do so.

The difference between subjective and objective perception is, according to Popper, as follows:

"Subjective perception can not be subject to criticism. It can of course be changed in various ways, for instance by eliminating its carrier(killing). Subjective perception can evolve, or, through Darwins method of mutation and selection of species, become more acceptable. Objective perception, by contrast, can change and evolve by eliminating (killing) the articulated presumption: The 'carrier' can survive - if he criticizes himself, he can even drop his own assumptions.

Mistakes are eliminated by systematically and rationally criticizing existing theories, and not by killing of living beings. Modern man is proof that this method accelerated the development of perception.

Further: If we don't allow humans to write down their theories about this world, we rob them of their dignity and lower them to the level of amoebae.

Popper continues on page 71: in contrast to an amoeba, which can not err, because that could result in its demise, the scholar looks for mistakes

"in the hope, to learn, by finding and eliminating them. The method of science is the critical method."

Popper dismisses any effort to hinder the search for mistakes in existing theories, by making them immune against critique, because it would block any search for knowledge. He accepts, however, the defense of existing theories with scientific evidence, because by so doing, we prevent those theories to demise too early. (p. 30f.)

The critical discussion of existing theories, in Poppers opinion, is the most reasonable Act, he writes:

"...I can not imagine anything more reasonable then a good critical discussion." (p. 22, s. p. 124)

What he and all "good" scientists think about declaring certain research theories taboo or illegal, should be abundantly clear.

In this context, Popper's discussions about the beginnings of scientific methodologies in ancient Greece are also of interest, p. 361:

"People, like the Babylonians, the Greeks, the New Zealand Maoris, that use mythology to try to explain what is happening around us, tell stories about the origin of this world to try and understand its origin from its structure. These stories turn into tradition, cultivated in there schools. They are often the property of a certain class, Priests or Medicine Man, that guard them. They change little, and if they do, its through misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and sometimes a new myth is invented by either a prophet or a poet.

Whatever contemporary Greek philosophy adds to it is not so much a replacement of those myths by something more scientific, but a new attitude towards them; and it seems, that any change in the character of these myths is a result of that new attitude.

What is new about this attitude is that it is critical. Instead of the dogmatic passing of a doctrine (where the important matter is the preservation of tradition), we have critical discussion. One asks questions, doubts the value of a belief.

Undoubtedly, there was critique and there where questions before. What is new, is that doubting and criticizing became tradition. Instead of the traditionally passing of dogmas, we have a tradition of higher order; in stead of traditional theories, - the myths -, appears the tradition to critically debate theories that are nothing but myths; and in the process of this critical debate, observations are called to witness.

In light of all this, if one does not get a sinking feeling in the pit of his/her stomach, looking at the lawsuits against Revisionists, is not paying attention.

To sum up: the basis of human dignity is the right to doubt what our senses apparently tell us, and to accept that there is a second possibility. The next step is to attempt to meet the critique of those doubts by making theories objective.

When doubt is outlawed, humans are robbed of there dignity.

Anyone who outlaws objectification and the critique of scientific theories, the printing, the publication of scientific theories and the open critique of those theories, violates basic human rights and commits an offence against the United Nations' human rights convention, the European human rights charta and article #1 of the German Bill of Rights.

What essentially guides Historians in the search for understanding

Every researcher and scientist has, of course, his individual concept about politics and ideology. Because of the above-mentioned shortcomings of human perception one can never dismiss the possibility that these ideologies influence his research, just as one cannot dismiss the possibility that the results of his research influence his ideology. To expect differently would mean the degradation of Scientists to emotionless machines, who, aside from their research projects do not notice anything around them. Especially obviously politically relevant sciences, like political science, sociology or historiography, cannot be approached impartially by anyone, because we are influenced by family, school, studies and occupation and also by the evaluation of a research project by society, all this has an effect on the researcher.

For a historian to approach the epoch of the Third Reich unbiased would mean, for instance, he must leave open if the political system of this time, and its historical effect, was positive or negative. More so, because these moral evaluations are even amongst historians sometimes a controversial extension into the moral and philosophical field of science. But which historian would, today, start his research about the Third Reich without prejudice regarding contend and ethics?

The general idea prevails in Germany, but not only there, that regarding the Third Reich one cannot let himself be forced to look at details, so as to understand or excuse what happened. The moral outrage and the subsequent resistance that are to be the deterrent to let anything like that happen again, must be in the forefront.

The historian Dr. Rainer Zitelmann in his book "Die Schatten der Vergangenheit"[[4] (The shadows of the past) explained, why this attitude toward our past and this perception of the science of history is wrong. Following are a few summarized excerpts including some explanations. As in any other science, the goal of the science of history has to be the finding of truth, or at least get as close to it as possible. Emotional bias of the scientist would no doubt hinder the search. However, to ask scientists to be unemotional would be inhuman and would never be accepted in other spheres of society, using animals for research to name one. First, we have to assure, scientists do not, because of their emotions, disregard the principles of scientific work. Secondly, we need to take care, no one blames the other for their emotions and chooses that as a motive to exclude a group of scientists from discourse, as long as they follow the criteria of scientific work. In scientific discourse the argument must be of interest, not the emotional background.

Dr. Zitelmann compares the process of finding the truth in court with that in science. In both cases one can find strong emotional prejudice, be it in the part of the prosecution and the defense, or between two groups of scientists fighting for "their" truth. It is this emotionally charged atmosphere that forces both sides, prosecution and defense, to do everything in their power to portray their side. Only this strong engagement assures that both exonerating and incriminating arguments are thrown on the scales. In other words: If neither side brings any moral engagement to the cause, a lot of evidence would remain in the dark, and one would not come any closer to the truth. Moral engagement can have positive sides, as long as it does not damage scientific work, or suppresses other opinions.

What would it entail if one of the two parties, engaged in an argument in a court, would be prohibited to present their arguments? Would that bring us closer to the truth? Doubtful. The opposite would be true because the fundamental supposition of scientific work must be that in principle any thesis can be subject to attempts of falsification (Popper), in other words, it must be made possible, through sound counter arguments, to disclaim it. It is therefore imperative for all sciences which want to draw realistic conclusions that any thesis and antithesis can be brought forth and any result of research must be principally possible, as long as the principles of scientific work are maintained. This is how Article #5, subsection three of the German Bill of Rights has to be interpreted, no other explanation is possible.

It is a popular misconception to think, only scientists or scientific institutions are able to discover the truth. This may be true in a few instances. However, we have to insure that every scientist is allowed to publish the results of his research, since only a free and unabated competition of scientific opinions in an open forum can assure that the most convincing opinion, i.e. probably the most realistic one, can prevail.

Undoubtedly, the reflections about the Third Reich are now, and will be in the near future, an extremely emotional topic. Dr. Zitelman wrote his essay about this matter, because in his above mentioned book he deals with many controversial topics about the Third Reich. Dr. Zitelmann is of the opinion that it has to be possible to discuss exonerating material regarding the Third Reich. If one is accused to try and find excuses for the Nazis, then this rebuke is wrong, first because it is to all-encompassing, and second, even when dealing with the Third Reich, truth can only be established in a scientific process of perception when the defense is allowed to present exonerating material. Therefore, it is wrong to accuse German or conservative scientists of trying to free themselves of certain stigmas even if the bulk of their scientific research is aimed toward exonerating circumstances. The determining factor in the evaluation of a scientific statement can never be the possible moral impairment of the scientist, but only the soundness of his argument.

I would like to go even a little further than Dr. Zitelmann: The most emotionally charged topic of our time is the persecution of the European Jews. Nobody can isolate himself from this emotion, especially in light of the celebrations, commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the liberation of some concentration camps.

Even scientists who have decided or are accused to work for the "Germans side" and produce mainly exonerating material must have the freedom to do so. But what do realities look like? They are prosecuted, isolated from society and materially ruined. If the press would disclose this, it would be widely known. But I don't want to discuss this, I am only interested in the treatment of those people by their peers.

Definition of Science

Before I go into details, I would like to, just briefly, specify what the principles of scientific research are that I have often talked about. First I want to quote from the German Federal Court of Constitution:[5]

"The protection the Bill of Rights offers, when it guaranties freedom of scientific research, is not dependent upon the accuracy of the methods used or the results, nor the soundness of the argumentation or reasoning or the completeness of points of view and proof, that are the foundation of scientific work. Only scientific debate can determine whether the results are accurate ore not. [...] The freedom of scientific research extends to points of view of minorities as well as to scientific endeavors and results that later proof to be wrong. Orthodox or intuitive approach is also protected by the Bill of Rights. The only prerequisite, it has to be science, this includes everything that can, by content or form, be interpreted as an earnest attempt to determine the truth. [...]

Therefore, a scholarly effort cannot be invalidated because it is one-sided or sketchy or it will not adequately allow other opinions. [...] It cannot be declared unscientific, if it fails to be scientific in detail or neglects to meet the definition of certain institutions, only when it fails systematically. This is especially the case if it is not aimed at determining the truth, but only at giving predetermined opinions and results the appearance of scientific authenticity. The persistent disregard of facts, sources, opinions and findings, that put the motif of the author in question, can be evidence of that. One cannot, however, deny a thesis scholarly character because of internal scientific controversy or regarding different directions in method or content."

Therefore, a possibly erroneous scientific effort of a representative of a minority cannot be declared invalid because it is possibly false, or it is the opinion of a minority. Only, for instance, the systematic disregard of adverse facts, sources and opinions could be evidence of unscientific work.

Scientists define their work much more precise. They demand the following:

Third parties must be able to ratify any statement made or conclusion arrived at in any scientific accomplishment, either through their own logical scientific arguing or through other fundamental scientific works.

In the topics addressed, the most important scientific counter arguments must be discussed, and proof of their publication must be included.

About the not so scientific methods of Historians

In his book "Streitpunkte"(controversies) Prof. Ernst Nolte suggests on page 9[[6] that the scientific character of the controversy about the "Final Solution" is not fully established, and he implies that the efforts of established scientists to be scientific are not always successful. Let me illustrate.

34 French Historians.

Following are a few examples that show, how the established scientists react to representatives of a different view, when debating the Holocaust.

When Dr. Robert Faurisson, professor for text- and document critique, in an article in the French media, published toward the end of the seventies, asked for evidence and expert opinions regarding the Nazi gas chambers, because of all the conflicting eye witness accounts, 34 of the most prominent French historians answered on Feb. 21.1997, in "Le Monde"as follows:

"One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one."

Here we have a classical case of prejudice: What needs to be proven, is already assumed to be proven, and we do not discuss other arguments, what's more, we are prohibited to discuss them. To date, the established French Holocaust historians have been true to these principals and have not discussed any of the Revisionists arguments. Thus, they violate one of the central scientific principals, to allow opposing views and to discuss them.

The research establishment here, in Germany, behaves no different.

Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl

As reaction to Prof. Faurissons initiative, an international panel was formed in France, its goal, to find and make public proof of the industrialized killing of the Jews by the Nazis. The result of this initiative - Revisionists, especially Prof. Faurisson where naturally excluded - was a book, in Germany published under the title "Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas"(National Socialist mass killings by poison gas). Most of the important personalities of the established international Holocaust research sign as authors and co-editors, leading the pack are the ex-communists Hermann Langbein and Eugen Kogon, as well as the, at that time, head of the coordinating office for the collection of national socialist crimes in Ludwigsburg, Adalbert Rückerl.[7] If you are asking, why I identify two of the authors as communists, patience please. The thread going through our topic will become more distinguishable later.

In the preamble, titled "Über dieses Buch"(About this book) the authors openly declare that the purpose of this book is to effectively combat revisionist tendencies. For this reason it is necessary to once and for all write down the truth, irrevocably. The reader is informed, on page 11 of the introduction that all those, that are not of the same opinion as the authors and the editors, regarding the Holocaust, are justifying National Socialist theory and praxis, proclaiming justification propaganda, and are extreme right wing and Neo Nazi agitators. In short, differences of opinion are unscientific. There are two things wrong with this:

1. Although science acknowledges the concept of truth, we know since ancient philosophy that we humans, because of our faulty perception process, are unable to grasp the whole truth. Therefore, nobody should claim to possess the absolute truth. We should not write anything in stone, even if the majority of scientists thought it was true, because if the history of science proved one thing, it is the fact that even long time held believes and perceptions, in light of new research, have proven to be false. How many scientific theories and perceptions have ended up on the trash heap of history? We know, no perception is comprehensive and final, therefore, scientists should always critically re-discuss and reexamine there own results (lat.: revidere). The critique and questioning of old, and believed to be a true, paradigm has to be the basis of science. The biologist, Prof. Dr. Nagl, portrays this as follows:[8]

"Natural Science is extremely conservative and dogmatic. Every conformation of a paradigm is welcome, anything new not accepted for a long time; the instinct to preserve (including the self-preservation), surpasses the search for truth. This is why new perceptions prevail only when enough scientists proclaim them, only then is the thinking process reversed, we have a 'scientific revolution', and a new paradigm replaces the old. [...]

Result: No pupil, no student, also no scientist or layperson should believe in conclusively proven facts, even if their textbooks portray them as such."

End of quote from Prof. Nagl. What is obvious for natural science, must also apply, only more so, to social sciences, where, because of political influence, it is possible that wishful thinking produces a faulty paradigm. From this point of view, what are we to think of the authors of the above-mentioned book, and their effort to cast their version of truth in stone? It is obviously a politically motivated, instead of a scientific, effort.

2. The insinuation of the authors, anyone having a different opinion, regarding the Holocaust, is apologetic about the Nazi regime and engages in right wing or Neo-Nazi propaganda, and is therefore unscientific, is not accurate. There are no names of the so-called Neo-Nazis mentioned, leaving those insinuations hanging in mid air. A book that claims to irrevocably discourage the advances of revisionism, but fails to identify the Revisionists, their arguments and where they can be found, violates one of the most important principles of scientific work, to at least mention the most important opinions and arguments contrary to the authors. The preamble of the book proves that these arguments are important, because it is the justification for this book to disprove them.

On page 9 in his book, "Streitpunkte" (Controversies),[5] Ernst Nolte acknowledges that any other opinion about the Holocaust is either ignored or insulted:

"Although I feel much more challenged by 'Revisionism' then the German Historians seem to be, I had to acknowledge very early that this kind of scholarly effort is met with by the established literature in an unscientific fashion, by rejection, by questioning the integrity of the authors or by plainly ignoring it."

The lack of competence of the revisionists are not the reason for ignoring them, as Prof. Nolte indicates on page 304:

"as this radical revisionism is far more substantiated in France and the USA than in Germany, and one cannot deny that their pioneers are very knowledgeable about the topic and have produced research material quoting sources and the questioning of them, which is probably better then that of the established Historians in Germany."

Following I would like to present a few examples, about the tendency to ignore or polemicize the arguments of Revisionists.

Institute for modern History

In the spring of 1991, I found an English study, dealing with the longtime stability of Iron od Prussian Blue, and informed all feasible, unknown to me at that time, persons and institutions about this and asked if they were interested, if so, to let me know. Amongst the institutions I contacted was the half official Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, asking them to please reply if they are interested. There was no reaction, although I had expected some form of contribution from them. Any further remissions, for instance various expert reports, where ignored. Toward the end of 1993 my solicitor asked them about their opinion regarding my analysis[[9]. Hellmuth Auerbach, one of the more prominent members of the institute, replied, on Dec. 21. 1993, as follows:[10]

"The Institute for Contemporary History will not express any opinions regarding your analysis. It is hardly necessary to reply to revisionists who question the mass killings in Auschwitz. It is self-evident these gassings happened, documents from the construction office of the Waffen SS and police in Auschwitz recently found in a Moscow archive demonstrate this (see the publication of Jean-Claude Pressac: Les Crematoirs d'Auschwitz. La maschinerie du meutre de masse. -Editions CNRS, Paris 1993)."

Even the Institute for Contemporary History, which normally works scientifically, assumes that something, which should be proven right or wrong, in this case my analysis, to be obviously wrong and refuses to discuss any counter arguments. One wonders, why the scientists of this Institute hide behind the judicial term "self-evident", even though they must know that there is not, nor will there ever be, such a term in science.

I will later touch on Pressacs book, used by Mr. Auerbach to dispute my analysis, but would like to clarify that my analysis and Pressacs last book have nothing in common. Pressac tries to reconstruct the functioning of the crematoria by quoting documents and statements from witnesses, but fails to subject these documents and accounts to a scientific critique. But exactly this scientific critique is central to my work. Therefore, Pressac's book cannot be used to counter my report.

Is it not curious that the Institute uses the term "self-evident" and a book, which has nothing in common with my analysis/deduction, to dispute it?

By refusing to accept a recently published book, I send them, titled "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte"[[11] (foundations of contemporary history) the Institute proved that it ignores any argument to the contrary. I send them a copy, hoping to receive some constructive criticism or corrections. This offer of a scientific discussion was rejected by the Institute and in so doing it branded itself to be unscientific and prejudiced.

Prof. Gerhard Jagschitz

Only once, in the court case against Gert Honsik, the opinion
of a professional was presented to refute the opinion of the revisionists, that
of Prof. Gerhard Jagschitz, a Viennese historian. However, with his qualified
opinion about the existence of human gas chambers in Auschwitz he is unable to
convince any serious scientists, let me explain why:

In regards to the question, if an alleged historical event
really happened, a few things must be ascertained first: At any time in history
only those things, that are in unanimity with the laws of nature, achievable
with the technical know how of that time and in conformity with the common laws
of logic, could really have happened. Only then are historians called upon to
examine if all that, which was witnessed or documented, can be brought in to
conformity with the advanced historical context or not.

Especially in regard to the question, if the witnessed,
technical elaborate, mass killings in Auschwitz and elsewhere where even
possible, thus happened, one needs first to query the technicians and nature
scientists to assess if it was possible and to examine the content of witnesses
statements and documents for their accuracy. It has to be determent if the
alleged gassings where technical possible and if witness testimony is in
agreement with today's findings as well as the, alluded to by witnesses,
concealing of evidence, through cremation, was possible. How can a historian,
with no knowledge of technical or scientific(nature) disciplines, be suited to
express an expert opinion to these questions? In accordance with German law,
Prof Jagschitz should have been dismissed as material witness for gross
incompetence, in conformity with Art. 244.

Even in Germany legal evidence must be formulated in such
manner that any conclusion arrived at can be ratified. Prof. Jagschitz, in his
statement, comes to the conclusion, one third of the witnesses, interviewed by
him, are trustworthy. One would like to believe him, however, he fails to
mention which witness testimony he is talking about, where this can be perused
and most important: what criteria he used to check their trustworthiness. If one
recognizes that technical and scientific(natural) competence is essential to
review this highly technical testimony, one can only conclude, Prof. Jagschitz
tossed the dice or didn't check himself and instead had some competent
professional do it for him. In that case he would be required to identify them,
which he didn't. That he could not have worked alone one can assume, because a
lot of the testimonies is almost certainly written in other languages, Hebrew,
Russian, Polish, Hungarian, French etc. which Prof. Jagschitz does not master.
Furthermore, Gerd Honsik alleged recently, Prof. Jagschitz, in collusion with
the court, changed the wording of his analysis in a few places.[12] If true,
this would be a case of document falsification (tampering with evidence)
Nevertheless, because he passed on as his own findings which could never have
come from him, he stands convicted to knowingly present an incomplete evaluation
which draws the wrong conclusions.

That Prof. Jagschitz went beyond his competence in his
analysis, shows up in Werner Rademacher's contribution to the book Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte (Foundations of Contemporary History) about the Lüftl
incident, which in actuality dealt with Jagschitz.[13] Anyone can judge, in
light of these eloquent arguments, if the analysis from Prof. Jagschitz is
convincing.

Besides, Prof. Jagschitz adamantly refused to enter in to any discussions
with experts who had an adverse opinion.[14] With this, he continually violates
one of the most important principles of the sciences.

Prof. Wolfgang Scheffler

In the fall of 1991, the liberal Thomas-Dehler Foundation held a convention in Nuremberg. There I had the opportunity to exchange some views with Werner Wegner, an acknowledged technical Holocaust expert, whose expertise was utilized by the court in Celle in it's finding of Dec. 13. 1993.[15] Mr. Wegner, retired social counsel, age 90, who lacks any expertise regarding natural science and technical matters, is working for many years on a mammoth project about Auschwitz. His goal was to quote and discuss arguments for both sides governed by scientific standards. Mr. Wegner told me that to his sorrow that Prof. Wolfgang Scheffler took charge of his book, and directed him to delete all parts that deal with the arguments of Revisionists, because it is imprudent to give them a forum in a book of this nature.

I would like to elaborate: The amateur historian Wegner tried to do scientific work, but was prevented from doing so by the professional historian, Prof. Scheffler. Here is a hint: Not quite ten years ago it was Prof. Scheffler who tried, in an analysis for a court, to prove, Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich's book "Der Auschwitz Mythos" (The Auschwitz Myth) is unscientific.[16]

Prof. Wolfgang Benz

In 1991, Prof. Benz published a book, supervised by The Institute of Contemporary History, examining the number of Holocaust casualties, title; "Dimension des Völkermordes" (Dimension of genocide).[17] This book was published eight years after a revisionist book came out, devoted to the same topic.[18] In the prologue, Prof. Benz deals relatively thoroughly with the tendencies, to revise history, regarding the Holocaust. The book is meant to address these tendencies. To claim scientific status, it must at least mention and discuss the most important arguments made by Revisionists in regards to population statistics. Far from it: the book from W.N. Sanning and it's wealth of arguments are not discussed. Only one of the many authors of this volume mentions Sanning in a footnote, alleging, Sanning's method was wrong and he therefore came to the wrong conclusions. No one in this book tries to substantiate this allegation. Conclusion: For this reason, the book from Prof. Benz should be rejected as unscientific. However, this does not imply that the conclusions have to be wrong.

It is interesting to note that in his book he speaks of the peace-loving Soviet Union, if in not so many words, and refers to, with no mention of sources, the Stalinist show trails of Charkow and Krasnodar from 1943, as proof. Authors that are obviously convinced those Stalin's show-trails where just, must bear the question, if they are not themselves close to the Stalinist system, a system that claimed millions of lives.[19]

Not to be misunderstood: I don't dismiss Mr. Benz's work as unscientific because he is probably on the far left of the political spectrum, every scientist has the right to his private political opinion. But we cannot allow the principles of scientific work, as mentioned above, to be massively violated. And one should be pensive that just the left leaning personalities are those who depict the picture of the Holocaust and subdue all other opinions with all sorts of unscientific methods.

That Prof. Benz indeed had motives other than the acquisition of historical truth, proves a recently published pamphlet aimed at the revisionists and I quote:[20]

"Motives and concerns of the authors and editors can be summed up in two points:

to protect the victims of National Socialism from abuse and insults, which the denial of the revisionists represents, and

to immunize the young generation from extreme right propaganda and provocation."

Both politically motivated, and therefor unscientific, statements assume, the theses of the revisionists are faulty, because the truth can be neither provocative nor insulting. Only someone who thinks himself in the exclusive possession of the truth can conclude that the theses of the revisionists are wrong.

Prof. Eberhard Jäckel

Two years ago, Prof. Eberhard Jäckel published the German version of the "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust"[[21]. In it, he neither mentions nor discusses any of the revisionist arguments. During the making of the film "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland" (Death is a Master from Germany), shown May 2, 1990, Prof. Jäckel acted as the scientific authority. Unfortunately, one of the pictures in this film was a forgery. Although Prof. Jäckel was made aware of it, to this day he refuses to address this point. I was present when Prof. Jäckel, approximately two years ago, held a speech at an exhibition commemorating the tragedy of Anne Frank, in Böblingen. In it he referred to Academicians, especially from abroad, that deny the Holocaust. I asked Prof. Jäckel at the reception, following his speech, where one can look up these arguments, because, coming from Academicians one would have to assume that those arguments are intelligent. Prof. Jäckels answer was conspicuous. Finally, after some hedging on his part and through my persistence, he advised me to read the Deutsche National-Zeitung (a German nationalistic newspaper), or, he followed up, better yet, I should not read it. Earnestly, he recommended the National-Zeitung! There is never any mention of the arguments of foreign academic Holocaust revisionists in the Frey-Press, the National-Zeitung being one of their publications.

I evaluated this meeting as follows: Either, Prof. Jäckel doesn't want anyone to be familiar with the arguments of the revisionists, which is proof of his unscientific intentions, or, he is not familiar with them. How then can an expert on Holocaust issues do scientific work, if he is not familiar with the counter-arguments?

Prof. Jäckel admitted, in connection with the court case against Günter Deckert, in the summer of 1994, to be politically motivated to ignore or hush up uncomfortable arguments. He hinted, in a TV show[[22] that Nazism, because of the atrocities committed under it (at least his view of them), is a wonderful weapon against the political right, making them harmless. Interestingly, he didn't speak of a danger from Neo-Nazis or the extreme right, but of a danger from the political right generally. Because a plural democracy can function only when there are both left- and right-wing parties, one must ask, who authorized Prof. Jäckel to categorize anything on the right of center as dangerous. Danger for whom? He can only mean danger for the, at this time, dominance of the political left which he apparently is part of. With this, Prof. Jäckel not only admits his opposition to a political right, but also, because of his position, he is able to use his views to subdue the political right. Does one need more proof to understand the aims of the official Holocaust researchers?

By the way, one of the first scientific works, from Prof. Jäckel, has recently been proven fundamentally wrong. In 1958, in the Vierteljahresheften zur Zeitgeschichte (Quarterlies for Contemporary History) no. 4, Jäckel published a critical analysis of a oration, allegedly given by Stalin on the 19. of August, 1939, in which Stalin outlines, to the supreme soviet, his strategy to unleash the second world war and the submission of all of Europe. In the fall of 1939, this speech was published in France, and promptly denied by Stalin. Recently though, Russian researchers found documented proof that Stalin indeed made this speech on Aug. 8.1939, published in France. With this, Prof. Jäckel is presented as a historian, who, at least regarding the Second World War, continued the dirty propaganda work of the Soviet Union, which does not exactly enhance his reputation.[23]

Prof. Jehuda Bauer

I would like to now focus on one of the most renowned representatives of the official Holocaust researchers, Jehuda Bauer, Professor for Holocaust research on the University of Jerusalem. As publisher of the first edition, in English, of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, he naturally, as well as Prof. Jackel, muted any counter arguments.

His behavior towards discussion-partners, who, up to now thought well of him, is much more significant, if they try to engage him in an exchange of views regarding the Holocaust. The Berliner, Horst Lummert, son of a Jewish mother, experienced this, which he documented on page 22 in his booklet, Kuchuck, Feather 4/5, summer/fall 1994. Prof. Bauer, in his last letter to Mr. Lummert, dated March 3. 1994, informed him, rather abruptly, why he is no longer interested in a discussion:

"I principally don't get in to discussions with Neo-Nazis and Revisionists."

This demonstrates, Prof. Bauer acted contrary to one of the most important scientific principals and can no longer be considered a scientist.

It was this abrupt termination of correspondence, which caused Mr. Lummert to take the Revisionists, who are always willing and eager to debate, seriously, and to accuse the established Historians of unscientific prejudice.

David Cole, an American Jew, had the same experience, when he tried to encourage his friend from the Anti Defamation League[[24], to finally, trough scientific composition, dispute the arguments of the Revisionists and put an end to this "Nonsense". There reply was, not only did they want none of the revisionist literature in their house, also, they should not be permitted to touch it with a ten foot pole, much less discuss it. This could lead to skepticism in the ordinary citizen, because, whoever is that determined not to discuss these arguments, must live with the suspicion that they are not able to refute them and therefore fuels the fires of revisionism. This experience was the reason for David Cole to approach revisionism first cautiously, but later one with growing excitement. For a short while he belonged to the most well known revisionists world-wide before he was threatened by Jewish pressure groups to resign.

Prof. Deborah E. Lipstadt

Deborah E. Lipstadt, American professor for Jewish history and Holocaust research, is an interesting case. In her book Betrifft: Leugnen des Holocaust (regarding: denying the Holocaust) she admits to approaching this project with unscientific emotions. She blames the mostly none-German revisionists of being benignant towards Germans and implies that this is bad since she mentions this along with anti-Semitism, racism and right-wing extremism.[25] An American reader may not notice anything curious, but in the German translation this sounds very strange, because one gets the impression, the Author is suggesting, only a German hater is a good person.

Prof. Lipstadt further suggests, the remembrance of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, in Germany, is of extreme importance:

"If the country (Germany) falls victim to a brutalization-process and the Holocaust fails to stand out as a tragic event, Germany's moral obligation, to give refuge to all asylum seekers within its borders, diminishes."[[26]

What, if not for political reasons, could motivate an American professor of history to mention, in a book about Revisionism, Germany should be morally obligated to accommodate all refugees, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

And finally, what causes this academic, in regards to the thesis of Prof. Ernst Nolte, to put National Socialism into historical context and research it without emotions[[27], to not only dismiss this thesis but to elevate herself to the post of a supervisor over the science of history in Germany, which tries to quash these kind of thesis by stating:

"We did not study and research to stand like watch women or men on the Rhein, but we are forced to".[[28]

What a strange concept regarding freedom of the sciences!

Revisionism - a neglectable quantity?

One could state, the revisionist school represents an insignificant minority and it is not unscientific to ignore the arguments of this quantité négligeable.

If this is so, one can openly ask, why the media lately reports the ever increasing persecution of revisionists, and the alleged new evidence against their arguments and also, why it is necessary to counteract the tendency to deny, forget or suppress obvious historical facts by opening memorials and museums, especially this years, 50 years after the liberation of Auschwitz? Obviously, because there is a huge movement in the underground to revise history. Regarding the weight of revisionist thesis, Mrs. Bailer-Galanda, Prof. Wolfgang Benz and Wolfgang Neugebauer write correctly:[20]

"Since the right-wing propaganda, re.: denial of Nazi atrocities, is getting louder and even infiltrates schools, we, the established scientists can no longer ignore [sic!] this 'Revision of History'."

By citing a few examples, I would like to demonstrate that the scholarly effort of the revisionists is not a neglected side show, but the only real force which deals with the demands of modern history, acknowledged by Prof. Nolte in his book Streitpunkte ( Controversies)[5]. We will draw upon the above mentioned book by Jean-Claude Pressac[[9]. In the last 18 month, this book has, as probably no other before it, received an enormous amount of reviews:

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung mentioned it twice, on Nov. 14, 1993, and on Aug. 16,1994. Also, there where discussions about it in the following newspapers: Die Welt, 27.9.1993; Welt am Sonntag, 3.10.1993; taz, 21.3.1994, Focus, 25.4.1994; Süddeutsche Zeitung, 29.4.1994; Stuttgarter Nachrichten, 18.6.1994; Die Zeit, 18.3.1994; Junge Freiheit, 7.10.1994. All these papers present Pressac's book as a technically oriented, although not a truly technical work of high scientific value, written to discredit pseudo-scientific arguments of the so called ignorant neo-Nazi revisionists and Auschwitz deniers. Note: No other topic is as important as the effort to try and contradict the arguments of the revisionists! Therefore, one can hardly ignore those arguments.

How about Pressac's scientific effort? For instance, not many counter arguments are alluded to. Although Pressac claims to contradict the arguments of the revisionists, and the media, contemporary historians and the justice system join the chorus, Pressac systematically disregards facts, sources, opinions and conclusions that could challenge his belief. No mention of a revisionist thesis, non of the revisionist arguments are addressed. Since Pressac is used against the revisionists and drawn upon because of them, this unscientific approach deals the deathblow to his book.

One could, if one was so inclined, generously overlook this systematic ignoring of contrary opinions, if the author would at least honor the statement made in the beginning of the book, monotonously repeated by the media, contemporary historians and the justice system, to deliver a basically technical study regarding the cremation ovens in Auschwitz. In fact, his book does not contain any technically founded deliberation regarding the cremation ovens in Auschwitz, either of his own research or that of others. For reasons unknown, Jean-Claude Pressac is praised by the media for his technical rebuttal of revisionist arguments...

Nonetheless, the wealth of publications proves that the methods and theses of the revisionists dictate today's approach and discussion of the Holocaust researchers and the media, although the public knows little about this fight behind the scenes, and is only indirectly informed when the media praise the alleged discrediting of revisionist arguments.

Robert Redecker writes about this predicament in the French philosophically monthly Les Temps Modernes (modern times), published by Claude Lanzmann, issue 11/93, titled "La Catastrophe du Revisionnisme" as follows:

"Revisionism is not a theory as any other, it's a catastrophe. [...] A catastrophe is a change of an era. [...] Revisionism marks the end of a myth. [...] it points toward the end of our myth". [[29]

In the issue 12/93 he continues this line of thought with the title "Le Revisionnisme invisible":

"Far from sealing the defeat of the revisionists, Mr. Pressac's book: Les crématoirs d'Auschwitz. La technique du meurtre de masse, ensures their paradoxical triumph: the apparent winners (those, who confirm the atrocities as a whole) are the losers and the apparent losers (the revisionists including the deniers) make their point. The victory is invisible, jet undeniable. [...] The Revisionists are in the center of the debate, they ascertain their methods, cement their hegemony." [[30]

Claude Lanzmann is not just anybody, he is one of the most eminent member of the French Holocaust research establishment and of the French Holocaust business. His journal Les Temps Modernes is not just any journal but one of the leading philosophical journals of our time.

This proves, the revisionists thesis and methods can not be dismissed, but must be one of the most compelling challenges of the established science of history. One must therefore deny the established Holocaust-Science, because of their failure to mention arguments or publications from the revisionists, any claim to a scholarly effort. This includes Prof. Jehuda Bauer, Prof. Benz, Prof. Scheffler, Prof. Jäckel, Prof. Jagschitz, Mr. Auerbach, the Institute for modern science and all of those that ignore the arguments of revisionists in a similar fashion.

About the necessity for revisionism

At the start, I spoke of the necessity of the revisionist efforts in science in general and would like to refer to, aside from Popper, also to an illustrative remark made by Prof. Nagl on page 23 of my presentation. Let me quote a few more sources. In his book Die Faschismus Keule [[31] (The fascism club) the political scientist Prof. Hans-Helmuth Knütter writes:

"The dispute amongst Historians has thought us that our view of events must adjust, without reexamination and revision of the status quo, there will be stagnation instead of advance."

Dr. Heinz Magenheimer, assistant professor at the University of Salzburg and member of the Austrian defense Academy commented, in the German weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit, about the new revisionist tendencies of a few Historians[[32] in regards to the campaign against the Soviet Union in the second world war:[33]

"The fact that all those Authors must live with the title 'Revisionist' is not necessarily a disadvantage. Any historical research, attempting to discover the truth, must nourish doubt on any conveyed thesis, must constantly reexamine it and must be willing to correct it. In this sense, revisionism is the salt for seeking the truth'."

"In all cases radical revisionism must be given credit, as Raul Hilberg did, for forcing the established Historiography to reexamine their results and assumptions and to further substantiate them."

Because: (page 309)

[...] the questions about the reliability of witness testimony, the authenticity of documents, the technical probability of some processes, the credibility of numbers supplied and the taking into account of circumstances are not only feasible, but scientifically unavoidable and any attempt to quell certain arguments and evidence through gag orders or laws, must be deemed illegal."

Therefore, all judicial measures aimed at Revisionists must be considered an assault on the sciences and a violation of human rights.

About left-wing, right-wing and prudent motives

Revisionists are generally accused of harboring right, to extreme right appalling political motives. Why are the established authorities not asked what they would like to gain by their obviously unscientific research? When revisionists are dragged in front of all kinds of assorted tribunals and questioned, why not these gentlemen as well? If scientists are questioned about their possible political intentions in their research, then all of them have to be. By using Prof. Jäckel and Prof. Benz as examples, I demonstrated that there is enough evidence to accuse the established Holocaust scientist/researchers of being politically (left-wing) motivated. It is obvious that the almost unanimous, unscientific screening of counter arguments, by the established Holocaust researchers, (notable exceptions; Prof. Ernst Nolte and lately Dr. Joachim Hoffmann[[35]) is politically motivated. If the public is not interested in questioning their motives, but only in advancing the motives of the revisionists, one must ask what motives the public has to only find one side suspect and let the others live in a fool's paradise.

Prof. Peter Steinbach

Last year, when Prof. Steinbach was massively attacked for putting the emphasis, in his portrayal of the resistance in the Third Reich, on the Communists, he defended his subjective point of view as follows: [[36]

"The Bill of Rights protects scientific research and basically demands the impartiality of this research. This concerns history in particular, where the object is not to follow a particular line of thought and make it palatable, but to find starting points for a discussion. In a pluralistic society same has to be abundant and controversial."

He sees his concentration on the communist resistance in the Third Reich as a point of discussion, not as dogmatically accepted truth. Prof. Steinbach belongs, by the way, to the native Holocaust experts and complements the picture of the left to extreme left oriented scientists on this topic.

Everybody in this country (Germany), including myself, accepts this scientist and his work, even though, he never alludes to the political motives of those, in whose name 70 million died. The reason for this tolerance is simple: As long as Prof. Steinbach is governed by scientific principles, his conviction and his adduced research intentions are irrelevant.

Prof. Carl Degler

We have to ask: What recognizable interest, if any, am I guided by in my research?

The former president of the Organization of American Historians (OAH), Carl Degler, raised this concern, according to Prof. Lipstadt, by stating that we have to consider that:

"...we would endanger every historical engagement, if we ask for 'reasons' that guide any historical endeavor." [[37]

The answer to the question, if, whatever interest guides your research, this is relevant, must be: It is of no concern in a constitutional state. The only question that should be asked, were scientific principles followed, and not, if the results are politically correct.

The Eros of Science

I would like to explain, why most of the revisionists are motivated to continue their research in spite of massive resistance. Sooner or later many revisionists experience an emotional high for the following reason: On the one side we have the few, always threatened by prosecution, socially shunned and financially weak, revisionists. On the other side, there is an army of Holocaust historians, complemented by their helpers on many of the institutions worldwide, the politicians that back them, indeed whole nations and most of the media with millions in their budget. Still: Do not the revisionists impose the topic of the discussion to which the established Holocaust researchers can only react? Whoever has the weaker arguments or is caught contradicting himself, can only panic when confronted with better arguments, as happened, on May 19, 1994, in the Swiss Weltwoche, when a shortened version of my expert report[[39] was circulated: Someone thought people need to be warned about discussing a revisionist thesis:

"Don't get involved in a discussion with a practicing revisionist! Whoever defies that Jews where killed in the Nazi gas chambers, is lying, and cannot hide behind freedom of expression, as was recently stated by the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe."

Note: Switzerland is quoting the findings of the German(!) Constitutional Court! No effort is made to counter revisionist arguments, instead, revisionists are defamed and people are cautioned not to form there own opinions through discussions with them. This is the usual procedure of the media. Even professors of history fall short in discussions with revisionists, which is why they normally don't enter into discussions with them.

De omnibus dubitantum est

What do revisionists want? They only want to achieve that, what is normally done in science, be done when reviewing modern history as well: To critically review and test, what has been past onto us as the truth. Indeed, one must state that this has to be the defining characteristic of the sciences in general: to submit, what is deemed to be true, to a critical test and to be willing to revise long adhered to perceptions. The possibility to formulate a converse thesis to prevailing paradigms and prove them, must be the preamble for scientific work, period. By not allowing us to review the historiography of the Third Reich, we don't brand revisionists as oddballs of science, but abolish science in itself and elevate the writings about modern history to a special status, not subject to criticism or revision.

Prof. Nolte, on page 308, in his book Streitpunkte (Controversies) [[5] states appropriately:

"The prevailing opinion that any doubt about the official version of the Holocaust and the six million victims is a sign of a malicious and misanthropic mindset and should be outlawed cannot be accepted by the sciences, because of the fundamental maxim 'de omnibus dubitandum est' [everything must be doubted] and must be repulsed as an attack on the principles of science."

Inasmuch as my expert report[8] and my book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (foundations of contemporary history)[10] have already been recalled and lawsuits launched against the authors, editors, publishers, printers, wholesalers, sellers and distributors, proves, this attack has already started. It sounds like mockery, when the Attorney and politician of Germany's biggest political party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Horst Eylmann, on page 76 of the Germany weekly Focus, no. 38/1994, states:

"Any Historiographer, engaged in necessary work regarding the Holocaust, does not have to be concerned about the rewriting of paragraph 130 of the criminal code: The constitutional court would decisively rebuff any liberal interpretation of the law as feared by Prof. Nolte."

The magic word in Eylmanns deliberation has to be "necessary", which gives our courts the arbitrary right to decide, what part of the engagement with the Holocaust is necessary, and which is not. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have this lawsuit.

Well-founded doubts

In the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was declared solely responsible for starting the World War I. We know for a while now, this was a lie, kept alive by the victors. This lie was able to prevail, because of the horror stories told about the Germans: Hands of Belgian children chopped of by German soldiers, cut of women's breasts, necklaces made from eyeballs, soap made from bodies of fallen soldiers, Serbs killed in churches by poison gas.[40] We are told today, that in contrast to the lies told in World War I, many of the similar sounding stories are true in World War II: SS butchers smash children, women tore to pieces by watchdogs, soap made from murdered Jews, [41] mass poisonings in gas chambers.

We must always be aware of the fact, Germany was totally defeated in World War II, and our enemies nourished much greater hatred then in 1918, and no German could do anything, at least until 1949, to counter this excessive hatred, no free German press, no German science; especially the American forces, with their reeducation program made absolutely sure that no renewed German self awareness would lead to unwanted questions.[42] Why should everything our enemies are advancing, after World War II, be accurate? Did they not at that time, as opposed to the time after World War I, have many more opportunities to tell lies and 'authenticate' them? One should not dismiss this up front, because history demonstrates, the victors rarely write these kind of stories objectively, and the defeated are, through this, exposed to more unpleasantness. Because of this possibility, to distort history, critical revisiting, if need be revision, of all what happened in the Third Reich, must be the goal of every serious historiographer.

Hostility toward Jews versus reconciliation

I know from experience that many judges, along with most representatives of the public, cannot imagine that the reduction of history to what really happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews, would lead to an improvement in German-Jewish relations. Instead, they are inclined to think, this could only lead to negative feelings: Rejection on the side of the Germans toward the Jews, because they feel cheated and abused, Rejection on the side of the Jews toward Germans, because their fate is no longer respected.

With this interpretation one assumes, the relationship between Jews and Germans is one of equals. We all know, however, this is unfortunately no so, because the Jews will forever portray the accusers, in regards to what happened in the Holocaust, and the Germans the accused. As well, there can never be any doubt that future German generations will be made responsible, as we are told on numerous occasions, commemorating the Holocaust in 1995. Sooner or later, this relationship has to lead to conflicts. It is my opinion that a return to a fruitful and equal coexistence can only be achieved if we try and find out what really happened to the Jews between 1933 and 1945, in contrast to the exaggerations and falsifications. Should a lot of things, in regards to the Holocaust, be proven false, it would undoubtedly reduce the pressure on the Jewish-German relationship.

Today's abnormal relationship between Jews and Germans can be further demonstrated. 1995 is not only an anniversary of the end of World War II, but it is also 20 years ago that the Vietnam War ended. On this occasion, German Television reported on the efforts made by American and Vietcong officers to reconcile their differences. They are jointly searching for mass graves, in which Americans, in the seventies, buried fallen Vietcong soldiers. On finding one of these graves, an ex-Vietcong officer remarked, one should finally close this chapter and forget all the atrocities of that time; this must be a prerequisite for improving relations between the Vietnamese and American people.

Can one imagine listening to this kind of expression on a meeting between German and Jewish officers? Obviously not. In regards to the Holocaust we are always reminded, this chapter can never be closed, there can be no forgiveness nor can it be forgotten.

Does remembering prevent or produce new suffering?

I would like to get even closer to the root of the problem.

Some revisionists conclude, there is a reason for the falsification of the Holocaust historiography, it conceals one of the biggest historical falsifications, and therefore one of the largest atrocities in human history. Most are of the opinion, the revisionists circulate this theory to spread hatred toward the Jews. The weekly "Die Zeit", in its issue from Dec. 12, 1993, writes, the intent behind that revisionist thesis is (in the opinion of that newspaper) to plan and implement the second ethnic cleansing of the Jews. Persons with similar views have their positions in German justice, media and politics.

Now I would like to turn these arguments around, and use them against the opposition.

Their thesis is, the National Socialists have, following a preconceived plan, in the name of and with the active participation of the German people, implemented the industrialized killing of the Jews in Gas chambers in their sphere of influence, and consequently committed an unequaled crime. What would happen if someone would advance the, substantiated or not, opinion, the thesis of the killing of the Jews was advanced, following the second world war, to spread hatred toward the Germans and to cover up the mass murder of Germans through bombings, expulsions and starvation in captivity? Anyone uttering these kinds of opinions would have to defend themselves before a judge.

How can this judicial bias, regarding structurally equal arguments, be explained? It could be based on the assumption that the official account of the Holocaust is self-evidently right, and the thesis of the revisionists is wrong. One has to keep in mind though that the revisionists are convinced that their thesis is accurate and that they are therefore not knowingly spreading the untruth, i.e. they don't ly. My argument is that in both above mentioned instances the persons are convinced of the subjective accuracy of their opinions and should be subject to the same treatment.

If the intention of the deemed to be true opinion, the Holocaust happened as told, is not the spreading of hatred toward Germans or to cover up or justify the mass murder of them

then how can the intention behind the equally deemed to be true opinion, the historiography dealing with the killing of Jews is false, be interpreted as spreading of hatred toward the Jews and the preparation for the next mass murder?

The same, of course, is true in reverse.

If the circulation of the deemed to be true opinion, the Holocaust happened, is desirable because the constant reminding of the atrocities by repetition prevents the occurrence of similar horrors in future

this begs the question, why the spreading of the likewise deemed to be true opinion, the description of the killing of the Jews is false, is not equally welcomed, because one could argue here as well that only the continuos reminder of the crime of imposing and supporting a wrong historical picture makes a recurrence in the future impossible.

At this facet our counsels, politicians and media peoples can only do one thing: declaring that the revisionists know they are not telling the truth, thus lying; and one only lies when harboring bad intentions. This allegedly proves that not the search for historical truths but anti-Semitic sentiments are the true motivators of the revisionists. There is never any evidence quoted, because it could hardly be proven that someone is advocating an intricate image against his better judgement. Thus, the conviction that anyone having a different opinion regarding the Holocaust is a liar, is understandable only if one assumes an extraordinary amount of delusion. One is either because of lack of information about this matter or because of unsavory (political) motives not willing to listen to others and enter into a discussion on the topic to, if need be, revise ones own misconceptions.

Dealing with the scientific victory of Revisionism

At some time, should the thesis of the revisionists be proven to be true, we would naturally have to question the motive of those, who fashioned the now overcome version of history, upheld and defended same using the penal code and their personal responsibility, guilt and liability. The possible consequences for those perpetrators must not deter anyone from uncovering crimes. Of course, the perception must stay intact that the issue about motive, responsibility, guilt and liability can never be dealt with collectively but must always be addressed individually. With this we are following the Christian-occidental understanding of the law and not that of the old testament.

All this can, of course, never change the understanding that even if the revisionist theses are verified, one thing must be certain for every thinking human being: In the German sphere of influence, Jews frequently suffered injustices in the form of deprivation of rights, expropriation of possessions, expulsion, deportation, internment and forced labor. Victims of malnutrition caused by negligence, lack of medical and sanitary care, overworking and killings through draconian punishment ore shooting of hostages trying to combat partisans, number, even in the opinion of revisionists, in the hundreds of thousands. I already illustrated this in the introduction to Grundlagen (foundations) and firmly believe in it: The collective deprivation of rights, deportation and internment of the Jews under inhuman conditions that lead to numerous deaths, is a crime, irrespective if there was intentional technical mass murder through poison gas or not. It is therefore inconceivable to suggest that I am trying to turn the Jew from victims into perpetrators: In the sphere of influence of the Third Reich, they obviously were victims.

About the scholarly efforts of revisionists

Our German courts, as a rule, do not rate their expertise, in regards to the evaluation of the scholarly effort of revisionists, as sufficient, they occasionally consult expert witnesses. We know from experience, the establishment of those expert reports would come from the following selection of expert witnesses, who for decades are the product of inbreeding between the German research for modern history and our justice system: Prof. Benz, Prof. Scheffler, Prof. Jäckel, Prof. Jagschitz, Prof. Steinbach, Mr. Auerbach etc. I have already demonstrated what I think about their impartiality and scientific effort. I would never accept this kind of expert witness, who can, for good reasons, be accused of being ignorant and arrogant.

There are two cardinal issues at the core of the question about the scholarly effort of revisionists:

Are the assertions and the arguments verified with scientific sources and in agreement with the legitimacy of the actual subject?

Are the most important publicized counter arguments quoted and discussed?

I will illustrate, by quoting from my expert report[8], as well as from my book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte [10], published under the pseudonym Ernst Gauss and from the book by Jean-Claude Pressac[9], used by the Institute for Contemporary History for rebuttal, what the actual problem is. In regards to the above-mentioned questions, we, the revisionists, don't have to feel humiliated, when our work is compared to the, highly praised by the public, work of Pressac, indeed, I would like to argue, our work, in regards to the two questions, is far superior to that of Pressac.

I would like to explain, briefly:

Regarding the technique of mass-murder in gas chambers and crematory ovens, Pressac cites not one piece of expert literature and fails to undertake any calculations of his own. In our book, by contrast, in every segment, we cited numerous pieces of literature from the established experts, discussed a vast quantity of the induced arguments, verified our thesis with a variety of expert literature and conducted our own, easily verified, calculations. In my expert report, I cite app. 100 pieces of literature dealing with the chemistry and toxicology of hydrogen cyanide, the chemistry of cyanides, the chemistry and physics of building materials, about the function of hydrogen cyanide gassing installations etc. As well, one will find calculations, which, to this day, have not been proven to be in conflict with any chemical and physical laws.

Pressac cites not even one opposing opinion nor does he discuss a counter argument. I, by contrast, wrote my expert report, taking in account Pressac's first book[43] and repeatedly made his arguments the subject of detailed discussions. I repeatedly, and in detail, dealt with the objections from Dr. Josef Bailer and Dr. Georges Wellers, discussed the opposing opinion from a Cracow institute, focused on the arguments of Prof. Jagschitz and Prof. Fleming and touched upon the elaborations of Werner Wegner. I considered any opposing opinion I knew of. Show me one, in the spring of 1993 known, concept about chemical, toxicological or structural aspect of the gas chamber problem I left unmentioned! As well, in our omnibus volume "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte" we took in to account all known case literature and repeatedly made the stated arguments the subject of detailed discussions.

When reviewing the scientific method of our, the revisionists, work, one can only come to the conclusion that it is head and shoulders above that from Pressac wrote. I must ask: Why are we, who work scientifically, dragged repeatedly in front of various tribunals? Why is not Jean-Claude Pressac, whose work is clearly unscientific, accused? The same is true for many of the revisionist efforts, in contrast to what the opposition puts on paper.

About the truth of our thesis

Only when the question, whether our works follow scientific criteria, is settled, one can deal with the content and the issue, whether the conclusions are right or wrong. If our work satisfies scientific criteria, which in our opinion is the case, then the issue about the content should not be dealt with by incompetent courts, but instead by professional scientists, involving possibly years of research.[44]

Therefor, we see no reason to waste time in front of a judge with questions about content, especially in light of the fact that German courts routinely refuse our proposal to examine our thesis with regard to the contents, because our statements are obviously wrong.

About the restrictions imposed on historical research

The basic problem about our topic is that, if one doesn't want to come into conflict with the law, or become a social outcast, then any conclusions arrived at, regarding the Holocaust, better are of the accepted variety. The issue about scientific character is only a fig-leaf placed in front of this questionable charade. Ernst Nolte, in his book Streitpunkte[5], defined this questionability. For the sake of the freedom for sciences, he writes, it is inconceivable to persecute revisionist, if their only crime is, to have a different opinion. He observes that in concurrence with occidental tradition, science must have the freedom to create doubt on any thing. This is not only his opinion. The sociologist Arno Planck, in his book Hitlers langer Schatten (Hitler's long shadow) writes, it is incompatible with the tradition of occidental tolerance, to apply criminal laws to support the "Truth". Indeed, the application of criminal laws to support non a consensual hypothesis is a step backward behind

"... the Enlightenment, in the spirit of which Voltaire, when answering an adversary, could say: 'I detest what you are saying, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.' Out of the same spirit, Martin Broszat, longtime head of the Institute for Contemporary History, spoke against the 'mere appearance of a confining of the public, critical, even provocative discussions about the Nazi era by invoking criminal law.' This kind of legislature, so Broszat, is a disregard of the 'free scientific, publishing and social forces' in our country [...]"[45]

It must be clearly stated that those, who try to dictate their conclusions to science, are killing it. Science can only be free and arrive at candid conclusions that come as close as possible to the truth, when it can do research with no pre-determined results. One must be permitted, in regards to the Holocaust, to prove it happened or to prove it didn't.

Included in the freedom for sciences is the right to err, which all non-revisionists claim. However, if a revisionist is proven wrong, he is charged with fraud and deception. At this point, one must consequently go even one step further: Often, just those erroneous ideas of scientists have been the cause or at least the starting point for new scientific perceptions, because mistakes take one from the trodden path of the established opinions, into new territory that nobody, so far, thought of discovering or was, because of conventional wisdom or through repressions, afraid to do so. Therefore, an error can lead to the correction of an up to now deemed, or considered, "truth".

The biologist, Prof. Dr. Hans Mohr, in his book "Natur und Moral" (Nature and Moral) has this to say about the freedom for sciences:

"'Freedom of research' implies that practically any research object can be chosen. Any 'Index of banned wisdom' or a 'Catalog of taboo research objects' or a research moratorium can, because of the self-image and the dignity of the sciences, not be tolerated, because we must steadfastly cling to the conviction that knowledge is, under any circumstance, better than ignorance"[46]

Our lawgivers, however, seemed to have made it their aim, to put the results of revisionist research in an "Index of banned wisdom", as evident by the, ordered by the court of Tübingen on March 27.1995, confiscation of the book "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte"[47]. The aim of the research, to examine the technical background of the alleged mass murder of the Jews, was thus placed in the "Catalog of taboo research objects" and essentially a research moratorium and the ban on questions were proclaimed.[48]

About isolated (singular) opinions

German courts exhibit a tendency to portray revisionist opinions, which deviate from that of the public, as isolated, and as something the revisionist knows is untrue.[49] For example, a judge asked a witness, in a court case against a revisionist, if it was discussed "that he [the accused], with this [his thesis about Auschwitz] is violating historical truth, and is representing an isolated opinion." With this, our courts make a variety of statements:

The historical truth

The courts seem to have the opinion that there is a final, compelling perception of historical truth, and everyone has to submit to it. With this, they seem to be in a consensus with the verdicts of our highest judges, who consider the planed, industrialized mass murder of millions of peoples of Jewish origin, in the Third Reich as self-evident, and who deem any query for proof as inappropriate.

I repeatedly pointed out that science can never claim to be in possession of the absolute truth, and even governments and their lawgivers and the judiciary are unable to change this. However, I, as a scientist, feel obliged to critically question this alleged truth they are trying to force on us, via use of criminal law, because I am of the opinion that only lies need the support of the law to sustain themselves. By contrast, the truth does not need the protection of the law. I am certain, it will emerge through scientific discourse, even if not necessarily here and now.

About the plurality of singular opinions

Further more, revisionists are continually accused of representing a "Singular opinion". I am not quite sure what is meant by "singular opinion". I am assuming, however, it implies, the opinion of the revisionists runs contrary to that of the "sincere" Historians. According to our courts, this could only entail Messrs. Prof. Jehuda Bauer, Prof. Benz, Prof. Scheffler, Prof. Jäckel, Prof. Jagschitz, Prof. Steinbach and Mr. Auerbach. Historians like Prof. Schlee, Prof Haverbeck, Prof. Nolte and Prof. Diwald, whose citations are in the back of my expert report[8], are not included. Neither are my colleagues, who, according to Prof. Haverbeck, are delighted about my revisionist research activity. As well, colleagues who, according to the written testimony of an, out of gratitude not named, Professor, know that there is something rotten about the portrayed historical picture, are not mentioned.

About the singularization of plural opinions

Why are the voices of those singulars suddenly appearing in plural not heard in public? Our judiciary is to blame for this! Those professors are just as afraid as their colleagues from the Max-Planck-Institute. They know, their testimony would take them, as it did me, to the prisoners dock. Because of the strange formulation in Germany of the "self-evidentness of the Holocaust," even established historians, if they dare go against the grain, are threatened with prosecution, with financial ruin, or becoming social outcasts. Prof. Diwald, in his book "Deutschland einig Vaterland" (Germany united Homeland) illustrated this as follows:

"Subsequently, there is not a more complex question, from the history of the Third Reich, which avoids exact research by German historians, then that of the plight of the Jews during the war. To be sure, the German Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of research and science. However, a number of sentences and convictions shows that it is advisable not to risk putting this to a test by selecting certain subjects, and it is a bigger gamble to even suggest violating the 21. Amendment to the Penal Law, dated June 13., 1985, and provoke libel action.

This means that researches into exactly this complex question of modern history are taboo, which, in combination with the secretly maintained thesis of collective guilt, is a heavy burden put on the German people like no other event. For this reason it should be very closely analyzed. It is the most important topic of German history in this century, as far as our historical self-awareness is concerned."[50]

Another Professor, historian as well, who will, out of gratitude and caution, remain nameless, recently wrote in a letter:

"If all things where equal, no sincere scientist, because of what we know today, could get past the realization that the commonplace version of the systematic gassing of millions of Jews in the extermination camps is nothing but a historical myth. What prevents the break-through of the historical truth are primary political interests, not even in the first instance those of the Jews and the State of Israel, but our own political clique, who legitimize their phenomenal political incompetence, for half a century, with the 'uniqueness of Germany's guilt' and could hardly admit that they were lead up the garden path and were as thick as two short planks."

One could quote additional personalities. But I will refrain from doing so, because anyone who deviates from the official version of history, in today's inquisitorial climate, can count on persecutions. Still, one should prepare oneself for the reaction of the public, when they find out, how plural the assumed singular opinion of the revisionist really is. Truth is, aside from the revisionists, there is not one professor in the true sense of the word, i.e.,: someone who professes, willing to risk honor and financial security by openly, in lecture circles and in the media, proclaiming to be of a conflicting opinion. Apparently, because of the ever present mind-control, the backbones of our elite were broken. Even the above-mentioned Arno Planck, in his book Hitlers langer Schatten writes, that,

"as far as punishing anyone because of the 'Auschwitz Lie', the real 'target groups' [...] are the official German historians, who are under pressure to admit the 'iniqueness' and out of fear of persecution willingly suppress important issues.[...] This is the consequence of a justice system that acts even if someone voices a [possibly, note by G.R.] erroneous opinion, with no intent to injure. This fortifies the popular notion to ignore burning questions; it furthers the willingness to pay lip service and brings about doubt on [apparently, note G.R.] irrefutable facts in all of those who have learned 'the truth will always be triumphant' by itself. [...] As well, this kind of justice system stimulates denouncement. [...]

For settling differences of opinions, in a basically liberal society, the best weapons are not prohibition or punishment, but the argument, the 'weapon word', according to Lew Kopolew. If we are not to loose face in the believe that democracy is a viable social form, then we cannot allow it to fight the [apparent, note G.R.] sympathizing with Hitler, with the same weapons the dictator used, to suppress opinions contrary to his own. [...] It appears to me, his [Hitler's] spirit, his resistance to mere doubts and to outlaw anything not suitable for the system, must still be conquered in his conquerors." [51]

With this, Arno Planck forces the German legal system, which persecutes revisionists, to look in the mirror and in his opinion a reflection appears, which has an eerie resemblance to that of Hitler, Freisler and company.

Until recently, the only murmur heard from one of the spooked German historians, was a footnote, in Latin, from Prof. Robert Hepp as his contribution to a publication by Prof. Hellmut Diwald:

By resorting to Latin, German historians have shown, how low they will stoop out of fear from the ever-present mind control! But not even that helped, as this book was subsequently ordered by a German court to be burnt and the author prosecuted exactly because of this very Latin sentence!

However, since the summer of 1995 there is reason to believe, more historians are no longer willing to give up their principals because of pressure from the state. The historian Dr. Joachim Hoffman, until recently employed by the military research department of the German Bundeswehr (Army) in Freiburg, in his new book Stalins Vernichtungskrieg (Stalin's extermination war) airs his views about the freedom of the sciences in our country:[53]

"Contrary to the letter and the spirit of the bill of rights, proclaiming freedom for the sciences, it is unfortunately advisable, before publishing a historiographic text in this time, to have it checked for possible liable, an undignified state of affairs."

Following this, he advances the discussion as started by revisionists and breaches many a favored taboo.[54]

Revisionist singularity in the trend of research

One could raise the question, what is singular about the statements in my expert report, for example. Every detail is based on often quoted and accepted sources. My thesis that the testimonies of the witnesses in regards to what happened in Auschwitz are unreliable, is confirmed by established researchers like Jean-Claude Pressac [55] or Arno J. Mayer [56].

The fact that they must undergo a technical-scientific review was accepted by the public who praised the book by the pharmacist Pressac, who is neither a technician nor a scientist, as a necessary supplement. (Compare with the above critical review.)

The repeated downward revision of the number of victims in Auschwitz proves, among other things, the trend of the research goes toward correction. Witnesses stated that 4 million people were killed, most of them in the gas chambers. When I wrote my report, the number of people killed in Auschwitz has been revised, downwards, from 4 million to 1,5 million, 1 million of those presumably killed in the gas chambers, acceded to by Pressac in his first book.[42] Jean-Claude Pressac, according to the German legal system, the media, and historians always a reliable source regarding the status of research, talks in his new book of only 470,000 to max. 550,000 killed in the gas chambers.[57] The difference between the verified 4 million and the currently accepted figure of app. 500,000, almost 10%, cannot be downplayed, and justifies the observation that, whatever happened at that time, according to testimony, could not have happened that way. One can find this statement in the summary of my report. Does anyone think we can dismiss the possibility, because of the already made corrections, that in the future there will not be more, possibly revolutionary adjustments made, changing the historical view of Auschwitz? Therefore, the summation in my Analysis is in line with research and not at all singular.

Every perception is singular in the beginning

Friedrich Count Spee, in the 17th century, also advanced a singular opinion in public, when he condemned the witch-hunt as an unjust institution. There may have been others of the same opinion, but Spee was the first who dared to publish his opinion, even if done so under a pseudonym. Nevertheless, his "singular opinion" proved to be right. Can our court preclude that the revisionist, allegedly "singular opinion," is also proven to be right? Would the German courts have the necessary expertise to decide this issue?

I know from forensic experience, whomever our courts accuse of having a "singular opinion", they consequently (must?) insinuate that the defendant must be aware of the singularity of his opinion and thus has to conclude therefore that his opinion is definitively wrong. It is understandable that someone with not enough expertise will deem a singular opinion to be false, although this kind of prejudice, looked at from a scientific point of view, cannot be accepted. Our judges are insinuating that the alleged knowledge of the singularity of ones thesis must be prove for the revisionists that their thesis is wrong. Which could lead one to speculate that the revisionists are not advocating their scientific thesis because they are convinced those are true, but because they are, under the guise of scientific effort, trying to advance anti-Semitic and extreme right-wing feelings. This is obviously the opinion of our courts and most of the public.

However, this composition is faulty, because the history of science has proven more than once that singular opinions can, over time, be proven right, indeed, every scientific theory was, surely, "singular" in the beginning. If and how fast a theory of this kind is advanced, depends, aside from its accuracy, on the willingness of the public to accept it. But the willingness of science, as well as of the media, to discuss controversial thesis regarding the Holocaust is - aside from bias - reduced to zero, mainly because of probable law suites.

I maintain that especially the most recent efforts of the revisionists fulfil the criteria of the above-mentioned views of the Constitutional Court regarding their scientific value, even if they represent the opinion of a minority or are singular. Therefor, these efforts should be immune from any criminal procedure.

The End of obviousness?

In Germany

The obviousness in recognizing the Holocaust will crumble, in
the opinion of our courts and law makers, when there are noticeable
disagreements in the public and the sciences. The renowned Historian Joachim
Hoffmann, till recently working on the Institute for military research in
Freiburg, a subsidiary of the defense department, in his current book Stalins
Vernichtungskrieg (Stalins war of extermination) is very explicit in stating
that some things about the Holocaust are not obvious. He talks about atrocities
"actually or allegedly committed by the Germans"[58] He identifies the
cause of death in the Concentration Camps Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Majdanek
and Auschwitz as "Terminations or extensive mortality" (emphasized
added) instead of the usual and.[59] He argues that in the early accounts from
the Soviet Union and the Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, the gas chamber death
in Auschwitz receive only secondary mention.[60] He talks about "alleged"
killings by gas in Majdanek"[61] calls the practices of the Military
tribunal questionable [62] and accuses the Soviet Union of misleading the
International Military Tribunal, by presenting forged documents showing alleged
German atrocities.[63] He calls the total number of victims of the Holocaust and
especially those of Auschwitz a "figure of Soviet propaganda", "meant
to influence the thinking of the public, especially that of the Anglo-Saxon
countries".[64] He deals with the alleged mass killings, in 1941, of Jews
by German Einsatztruppen (Death squads?) in the canyons of Babij jar, near Kiew
in the chapter "Soviet atrocities are ascribed to the Germans" and
implies concisely that "a recent evaluation of the numerous air
reconnaissance photos [...] apparently let to the conclusion that in contrast to
the clearly visible extensive mass graves of the NKVD[...] the terrain in the
canyon of Babij jar was undisturbed through the German occupancy".[65] He
classifies the 2.2 million unsolved cases resulting from the expulsion of
Germans from the east " Victims of anti-German genocide".[66] He calls
the measures of the security forces in the occupied eastern territories
"extreme measures, unfortunately effecting innocent bystanders, to try and
combat the guerilla activities which where willfully plotted and waged, knowing
they where contrary to international law"[67] and perceives the from the
German Reich, since 1943, pursued politic of equality between the German armed
forces and the anti-Stalinist "Russian Liberation Army" the beginning
of a "Friendship between the Russian and the German peoples" with
implications for the future.[68]

Obviously, Hoffmann has, in light of these revisionist
thunderbolts, a different opinion in regards to the Holocaust:

"The Auschwitz problem, with all its aspects, is today,
here and abroad, the topic of an intense, however informed public discussion,
even though some circles, for political reasons, violate the rules. This
discussion takes place not so much in the "official" literature, as
in the more obscure publications, and is largely influenced by the
governmental mind control, watched over jealously by the political informers.
This distinct discouragement of a free debate of an important pertinent
problem, be it yet so unpleasant, can not be sustained indefinitely.
Experience teaches, these kind of measures work only for a brief period of
time. Historical truth thrives behind the scenes only to finally come to the
fore. In regards to the Auschwitz problem, the issue is not the "obvious"
fact of the cruel persecution and slaughter of members of the Jewish race,
which defies discussion, but only the issue of what killing mechanisms where
used and the question, how many people fell victim to that persecution. There
are important discoveries in this regard, making a correction of the popular
view unavoidable."[69]

"That the number of victims, in this connection, was
overblown, has been of no consequence in any debates up to the present. As
well, at this time, it is practically against the law to suggest, 'the
number of Jewish victims is enormously overblown'.2) This puts
the historian in a precarious position, because on one hand he is subject to a
political justice system, including its spies and informers, and on the other
he is obliged by his job related duty to come as close as possible to the
correct figures[...]".

If one considers, Joachim Hoffmann had a few excerpts of his
book checked for liable and possibly made the necessary corrections, one can
only speculate what else he would have written, if Germany had no censorship.

As well, I have this nagging suspicion, the public prosecutor,
because of the above cited excerpts of Dr. Hoffmanns book about Babi jar,
dropped the case against the author of the part dealing with Babji jar in the
book Grundlagen zur
Zeitgeschichte (Foundations
of Contemporary History)[71] The excuse alluded to in the indictment,
the identity of the author Dr. Herbert Tiedemann could not be ascertained, is
false, because in all three searches of my residence they found his address in
my computer address book as well as in printed material, apart from the
applicable correspondence. My only recourse is, to accuse the public prosecutor
of negligence while in office, or try and get a dismissal because of the in
article 3, subsection 1 and 3, guarantees of equality in court.

The same is true for the Carlo Mattogno and Franco Deana
incidents. The reasoning of the public prosecutor, the contents of their chapter
is not libelous, can only be a demonstration of their unwillingness to debate
the issue, because the following passages can only be interpreted as a denial of
the exterminations of Jews by the Nazis.

"Therefor, the cremation of all corpses of the alleged
gassings, who according to Pressac where incinerated in Birkenau, was a
technical impossibility because of the period of time at their disposal."
p. 310;

"The cremation of the alleged victims of poisoned gas
was thus an impossibility." p. 312;

"Consequently, there where no mass killings in
Auschwitz between March and October 1943!" p. 315

"Accordingly, the incineration of alleged victims of
poison gas was impossible in 1944 as well." p. 317

If all these quotations are not libelous, how can others that
raise these kind of questions be?

And if the general conviction of the public prosecution is
correct, we tried to erect a mountain of doubts with this book, then why are not
the contributions of Mrs. Weckert about the Gas Wagons and the elaborations of
Mr. Ney, claiming the "Wannsee Protocol" is a fake, pieces of the
puzzle in the portrayal of doubt?

How ought one evaluate the following quotations from Mrs.
Weckert:

"The produced evidence, as a whole, is not convincing,
therefore, the accusation, Germans killed thousands in "Gas wagons"
must be considered a rumor". p. 212

Remains the impression, the judiciary tried to keep the
morsel Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Foundations of Contemporary
History) small, so it's easier to digest. I can't think of a different
explanation.

The article published under the title: "Appeal of the
100 · Freedom of thought is in danger!", in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung May 17. 1996 on page 12, received a lot of attention. Because of the
court action against publishers, distributers and authors of the book Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte,(Foundations of Contemporary History) 100 persons, amongst
them scholars and academicians of all standings, demanded: [72]

"WE, the undersigned, observe with concern the
increasing number of special laws being used to persecute publishers, editors
and authors, as well as scientists, who voice well based opinions on certain
issues, regarding modern history. Especially the lately used approach by the
judiciary, to dismiss, because of obviousness, any counter arguments by the
defense, borders an misrepresentation of the law, violates human rights and is
improper in a constitutional society. With this, scientific research and open
discussions, about relevant issues in Germany, are unnecessarily hampered and
the crucial truth finding process is delayed or altogether eliminated. Without
comments as to the contents of these controversial issues, we nevertheless are
concerned, as responsible citizens, about the precarious condition freedom of
opinion, of research and doctrine are in, which are guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights and appeal to the conscientious public, here and abroad, to do
everything in their power to prevent those violations of human rights and
basic democratic principles from occurring in the future."

The situation is similar abroad. The Dutch college paper, Intermediair,
on Dec. 12, 1995, published an essay by the college lecturer Dr. Michel Korzec,
in which he, on pages 19-23, outlines the results of revisionism, reduces the
number of people killed in Nazi gas chambers to 700.000-800.000 and calls for an
earnest debate of revisionist thesis.

Following the announcement by British Premier John Major,
Britain will not follow the examples of Germany and Europe and persecute
revisionists instead assure their freedom of opinion, commentator Chaim Bermant,
of the Jewish Chronicle, on Oct.5.1996, wrote on page 25:

"The whole process of historiography is that of
continued revision, not only because new facts and documents are discovered,
but also, established facts are re-evaluated and interpreted, since every
generation looks at historical events from a different perspective.

To seek laws, which try and isolate the gained knowledge
about the Holocaust, is contrary to reason.

These kind of laws are principally wrong, impractical and
possibly dangerous. [...]

The attempt, to hinder the work of revisionists, will
always promote the suspicion of cover-up. Further more, nothing the
revisionist say would be as harmful as the attempt to deprive them of their
right to say it."

Simon Green reacts to those comments, in the same paper, on
May 5.1996, as follows:

"Jews and non-Jews have to ask themselves, in regards
to a law aimed at Holocaust deniers, the question: What kind of truth is this
that needs the law to defend it. Such a law would be an insult to the victims.

There is only one sure way to destroy the arguments of the
Holocaust deniers once and for all, open discussion between the survivors and
the deniers held in public. Then the truth would be established for all
eternity and a long tradition of freedom of expression, for jews and non-Jews
alike, would be established.

What are the members of the central committee of Yad Vashem
afraid of?"

Similar sounds are heard from Italy. In an appeal, titled:
"Proclamation: Laissez faire, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Historical
research" 20 university members, amongst them 16 professors, in the leftist
Newspaper La Lente di Marx, went public with the following message:

"The french ministry of the interior, in December
1994, issued an all encompassing decree, banning the distribution of a book by
the German [correction: Suisse] author Jürgen Graf, because it, so the
justification," denies the Holocaust". We don't know if this is
true, primarily we don't know what is meant by "denial" of the so
horribly obvious extermination of human beings in the Nazi concentration
camps. However, this episode certainly emphasizes the alarming tendencies in
Europe, to settle historical controversies in court, which represents an
unacceptable interference by the judiciary and the politicians in to cultural
and academic issues of this and other countries. This is usually accompanied
by a noisy, yet intellectually inadequate, media campaign.

Even in Italy the Berlusconi government threatened last
fall, to issue a law, which would not only ban direct, but also
"indirect" anti- Semitic propaganda. The wording of this law was so
ambiguous, it would certainly have let to the obstruction of freedom of
expression and research. As historians, as well as Italian and European
citizens, who value the rights of minorities and individuals and would like to
voice our concern about those tendencies. This is in contrast to the
encouraging cultural developments in Israel( Critic of the David myth,
publication and critical analysis of Mein Kampf, etc.) In comparison, there is
no indication of any questioning, critic or combating of those tendencies by
the intellectual or political faculties, nor the press, in our country, not
from the right wing conservatives nor from the democratic left, for whom
"Laissez faire" and the scientific legitimacy of "Doubt"
are obviously only of value when dealing with Chomeni's Iran or the catholic
church (one needs to remember the polemic of the distant and resent past).

We are of the opinion that historical research must be free
of chains in Europe and Iran, in Germany, Italy as well as in France, and the
freedom to communicate ideas must be guaranteed. The accuracy of those can
only be ascertained in an open scientific debate and not through some court
judgement or the opinionated smear campaign of the mass media.

And finally, we are of the opinion that the justified
defense of our democratic values and the justified attack on any form of
racism, (incitement of hatred against other nationalities is persecuted in
this as well as in other countries) is never used to excuse any measures to
restrict freedoms (nor should they be confused with any of those?), because
inevitably they effect scientific values. The case Ernst Nolte is a good
example (we are not interested in a debate of his ideas here, but most of us
dismiss them categorically and entirely) Therefore, we appeal to the
scientific community, to which we belong, as well as to politicians and media
personnel to oppose this trend and stop a development, which, where ever it is
pursued, threatens the freedom of the press as well as cultural liberties in
all European countries".

The signatures of 20 members of Italian universities,
including 16 professors, are then listed.

In April 1996, in France, a book published by the well known
long time communist and resent convert to Islam, Roger Garaudy, produced a bona
fide scandal.[73] In it, he uses revisionist arguments to flatly deny the Nazi
mass murder of Jews and accuses them of trying to garner worldwide sympathies
for Israel by inflating the number of Holocaust victims. When Garaudy was
attacked by certain groups and finally criminal charges where laid, Henri
Groues, a member of the radical left wing, a.k.a. "Abbé Pierre", in
April 1996, provided support. Abbé Pierre, a kind of french Mother Theresa, for
a long time the social conscience of France, supported Garaudy with a five page
letter, demanding an open discussion of revisionist thesis.[74] When Abbé
Pierre, because of public pressure, withdrew his demand, the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, May 2. 1996, on page 37, wrote pertinently:

"In a press release from April 30. we are informed, he
(Abbé Pierre), following long discussions with the president of the Jewish
central committee and the head Rabbi, realizes a correction is necessary. Then
follows a complete retraction of anything communicated, by him, regarding the
Garaudy case and the realities of the Shoah. There is no need for a historian
colloquium to prove their accuracy. Garaudy promised to list all authenticated
errors, failing to do so, will result in the loss of credence. No sign of any
tears of regret ( ditto in the Brando case). This casuistry reminds us, in a
tragic way, of the performance in Hollywood, first bravery, then pull back
under pressure. The spectator is the embarrassed."

The remark about "Hollywood" in the FAZ is
aimed at Marlon Brando, who criticized the dominant role of Jews in Hollywood,
and recanted under pressure.[75]

This halfhearted retread was of no use for Abbé Pierre. He
was still subjected to massive attacks, which in turn not only drew him closer
to his friend Garaudy, but also let to massive attacks, by him, on the Zionist
because of there misuse of political influence and on the media of the
world.[76]

Consequently, because of this law, prominent personalities of
the far left and the catholic church would have to be charged in court, this in
turn let to a demand for abolishment of this law, which restricts the freedom of
opinion. Writes Georges André Chevallaz, former Suisse president, on May 2.
1996 in the Journal de Geneve:

"As a journalist I am appalled with this spirit of
McCarthy and the witch hunt which is unleashed every time the Holocaust is
alluded to."

Le Figaro, on May 3.1996, quotes a member of the
national assembly as follows:

"A kind of indirect pressure was put on
parliamentarians [1990]: all deputies who did not vote in favor of the [anti
revisionist] law where accused of denial. [...] Influential groups
produced an unhealthy climate[...] We have here, he adds, a law which
introduces an official fact. This is becoming for a totalitarian regime, but
not for a democracy".

The attorney, Prof. François Terré, states in Le Figaro on
May 15.1996:

"This text of totalitarian spirit (the Gayssot law
against revisionists) produced retribution for denial. It is up to the
judiciary to guard our basic freedoms, which are violated by the Gayssot law:
freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. [...] History should not be
judged by tribunals. [...] How then, can we prevent the implementation
of the Gayssot law, when those, who could have quashed it( the President of
the republic, the President of the national assembly and the senate, 60
deputies and 60 senators) didn't have the courage to do so. [...] [One
should call upon the European court to abolish] this detestable symbol of a
law, which reestablishes the crime of difference of opinion."[77]

Joseph Hanimann, in a communiqué dealing with the problems
of free and unrestricted historical research in France, published in the FAZ June
6. 1996, states, in closing, in regards to a comment made by the French
historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who now claims he was always opposed to this law: [78]

"Historians must continue their research and distance
themselves from the ambivalence of the daily topics. This is not an easy task
in the ideological nervous climate in France, and their plight will be of
interest to other countries."

Which other countries is Hanimann referring to?

We can confirm the following: There is a still small, but
noticeable number of historians, who acknowledge the scientific effort of
Holocaust revisionism, or even participate in it. As well, in a growing number
of European countries, there is an open resistance to the official version of
the established historians in regards to the extermination of Jews by the Nazis.
This opposition can only be controlled, especially in Germany, with blatant
intimidations.

Consequently, the prerequisite by the German lawmakers and
the judiciary, there must be scientific opposition and a noticeable public
disagreement before the obviousness of the Holocaust is rescinded, is realized.

Counterproductive politic of suppression

"A thesis can not be eliminated by various methods of
suppression or by declaring it unlawful. Even if scientists practice
self-restraint, it could only bring about a slow-down, but never a stop of the
perception process. Friedrich Dürrenmatt, in his book Die Physiker, explains it
clearly. No power on earth can stop the perception process. Therefor, a smart
politician should try and embody this process into his visions. This suggests,
of course, politicians have to adjust their visions, in general, to include
scientific perceptions.

It has to be the role of the scientists, to prompt
politicians to remember the aforementioned advice: Knowledge can not be blocked
by prohibition, it only mobilizes those groups, who operate on the borders, or
outside, of legality. Suppressions of the sciences by government will always be
viewed by the public as unjust, further more, it leads to a loss of credibility,
because, to outlaw discussion will inspire the suspicion of cover-up or, the
lack of counter arguments.

Martin Broszat, former head of the Institute for modern
history, approved my views, from page 39, in the Grundlagen zur
Zeitgeschichte, in relation to the amendment of art. 194 of the penal code
from 1985(the so called Lex Engelhard) which deals with the repulsion of
Holocaust revisionism. In his commentary, contained in the book Nach Hitler (Beyond
Hitler), published by Hermann Graul and Klaus-Dietmar Heuke, titled "Should
the denial or belittling of the killing of Jews by the Nazis go unpunished
?"he states:

"The amendment gives birth to the fatal impression the
state judiciary has the competency to ascertain facts, as if the forces of our
free society and science are not able to accomplish an earnest, moral and
decent reproduction of the Nazi atrocities, and there is no reason to assume
this."

In the Grundlagen, on page 406f, I tried to clearly
show the quagmire the government gets in to with censorship:

"If someone makes the legitimacy of the German Republic
dependent upon the rightness or wrongness of the historiography of a detail of
modern history (lately most media and many politician do this) has not only a
wrong perception about the fundamentals of our Republic, which is not based on
the Holocaust but on the consensus of the citizens who belief in uncompromising
Human-and Universal Rights, he also commits a number of unforgivable crimes: To
begin with he gives the real enemies of our Republic instructions on how to
destroy our nation. Additionally, it is irresponsible and frivolous to make the
well-being of a nation dependant upon a " historical detail". What
would that nation do, if it turns out the revisionists are right? Dissolve
itself? Or should it outlaw the science of history and jail all historians? This
shows clearly on what slippery slope one places himself with those wrong
notions: He who tries to protect the Republic by rigorously defending the
accepted version of the Holocaust, will be forced, in a crisis, to undermine the
real pillars of our Nation, which are: Freedom of opinion, freedom of research,
teachings and the sciences and the independence of the justice system as
outlined in the constitution. Therefore, instead of being the protector of our
free democratic values, he would become its worst enemy.

The reactions to the (in)famous verdict in Mannheim against
G. Deckert have shown, this fear is all to real. One of the most important
principals and prerequisites of a constitutional society, the independence of
the Judges, was totally ignored, when two of the Judges where punished, for
their verdict, by forcing them to take sick leave for an undetermined duration.
They where not only accused of being to lenient, but also because they evaluated
the subjective facet of Deckert's offense to elaborately and favorably.[79]
This elaborate and favorable evaluation of the subjective facet of the
offence was welcome in the liberal politic of the past decades, when common
criminals where judged or the issue was a political offence by the left (
militant demonstrations against industrial targets) but suddenly, when someone
from the right would benefit from it, it's a scandal. It could be debated, if
the evaluation of the subjective facet of the offence, to the cost of determent,
is of benefit in our modern justice system or not. The disturbing aspect is the
obvious fact that in court cases against deniers of certain details oft the Nazi
persecution of the Jews, the objective facet of the offence, that is, the
question if the assertions of the accused are true or not, is prejudged, because
of obviousness before the case goes to court. In addition to this, the
subjective facet of the offence should also be prejudged, according to the
media, politicians and members of the judiciary. The character of a Holocaust
revisionist is assumed to be flawed, his intentions are principally evil and he
is therefore to be condemned without mercy, according to the media chorus.
Because of this, the cases dealing with Holocaust deniers are in fact show
cases, where the outcome has been predetermined.

Furthermore, it would border on a miracle if the judges of
the German Republic, considering the fate of their colleagues in Mannheim, don't
understand how to deal with revisionists if they want to hold on to their
position. My, till last year, controversial belief [80] that in court
cases dealing with revisionists, the issue is, whose head will roll, the accused
ore the judges, has been affirmed, indeed gone beyond: To save his head it is
not enough for a judge to condemn the accused, he has to demonize him and punish
him accordingly. [81]

The parallel, drawn by Mr. Köhler in his book between the
mediaeval witch-hunts and today's cases about alleged atrocities and the
deniers of those, is appropriate.[82]

There is a further danger from this false interpretation of
the basics of the free and democratic principles of the German Republic.
Essentially, the supporters of this erroneous notion, brand even those as
enemies of the state who mean no harm to it, indeed are willing to serve it.,
only because they are of a different opinion regarding certain aspects of modern
history. They make enemies out of people who aren't. With this constant
harassment people are forced in to an enemy role and thus, enemies are created
that are then attacked. These fabricated enemies are then used as justification
to further restrict freedoms, granted in the Bill of Rights, as alluded to
above. Driving honest citizens into this unwanted situation will, with the
growing scientific success of revisionism, lead to a polarization of our
society, dangerous to the internal peace of Germany.

Therefore, to prevent damage to the reputation of our nation,
it is time to seek impartial and scientific dialog and allot the Holocaust the
place in history it deserves".

Current book burnings

Fact is, there is censorship in the German Republic. Few
know, it is two-tiered. The recognized first step is the gathering of evidence
in a publication, by the federal testing staff, for contents dangerous to youth,
which can be initiated by a youth agency and as a result, this publication can
no longer be obtained by young people or accessible to them in any way. The list
of those books is regularly publicized in a report by this authority.

Eckehard Jesse, in his articles "Streitbare
Demokratie" (militant democracy) and "Vergangenheitsbewältigung"
(Dealing with the past), published by the Federal bureau for the protection of
the constitution in their volume Verfassungsschutz in der Demokratie
(Protecting the constitution in a democracy), (Carl Heymanns Publishing House,
Cologne 1990) comments on the evidence collection:

"The actions of the federal testing authority, in
regards to publications harmful to youth, is hardly acceptable in a free
society, because the written or spoken word can never be placed under
trusteeship" (p. 287)

"A free society should not be permitted to hinder or
block the exchange of ideas or points of view" (p. 303)

That the written word is placed under trusteeship in our
society is unfortunate, but, remarks Jesse:

"Still, by not arriving at the decisions (about the
harmful content) in secret, the examination of those, by the public and the
scientists, is possible". (p. 286)

He also criticizes the fact that only right leaning
publications are censored:

"The federal testing has led, in some instances, to
the opening of a door for a one-sided anti-fascism." (p. 304, also
comp. p. 289)

The second phase of censorship is the so called collection
and confiscation, in most cases revisionist publications. This happens following
the decision of some court. In contrast to the publications which where tested,
there is in the whole German Republic no place, where the confiscated
publications are disclosed, also, the reasons for confiscating them are never
announced. Often, one can only assume, because the authorities are confiscating
certain publications that those have been prohibited.

The criteria used when publications are evaluated is not the
same when they are impounded. Intentionally, the public is left in the dark. We
have here something of an quasi lawless area, not under the scrutiny of the
public. Strangely, there is no comment from Dr. Jesse about this praxis, indeed,
the whole German journalistic establishment dodges the fact that there are
yearly uncounted publications, mostly from the Right, impounded.

Now, I would like to produce a, by no means complete, list of
revisionist books and publications, impounded in Germany between 1993 and the
middle of 1996. Legally impounded books are, by the way, burned by German
authorities, therefore, the following list must be considered a official list of
book-burnings in Germany:

In a till now never repeated exhibition of persecution mania,
the public prosecutors office even confiscated copies of the books Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte (Foundations of Contemporary History) from private
persons. We know of 60 cases, where peoples homes where searched, only because
they had ordered more than three copies of the book and to confiscate them.
Further more, some book-and parcel shipments where checked to find books that
may still be in circulation so they can be destroyed.

To my knowledge, this kind of extensive censorship, where
books which are in private hands are confiscated to be burned, was not even
practiced in the Third Reich.

I would just like to issue a warning about this kind of
persecution mania, where books are burned, human burnings are usually not far
behind.

It therefore fits in to the picture of the fanatical book
burnings, which the public knows nothing about that the German Telecom,
responding to pressure from the prosecutors office, banned access to the data
banks of revisionists. With this, Germany even outdid China in regards to
internet censorship![83]

Repeated attempts by Americans, opposed to censorship, to
download data from the Zündelsite on to university computers, failed, because
of public and special lobby group pressure and this data consistently had to be
eradicated. Since it is practically impossible to censor the internet, one can
always find ways and means to acquire banned addresses, realization finally set
in that these miserably failed attempts of censorship, because of the press
coverage of them, where a gigantic advertising campaign for revisionism. Now
every attempt is made to shift attention away from them.

The forked tongue

That the international community is becoming more sensitive
towards the oppression of freedom of opinion, as we have demonstrated with an
Italian example, is evident even in our, oh so humanly oriented, country.

Wolfgang Schäuble, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
April 24.1996, on page 41, observes:

"In regards to the punishment for Holocaust denial and
the display of Nazi symbols, I would like to suggest: One could, if one was in
an abstract place, argue that the banning of opinions is nonsense, when we
look at it from the judicial point of view. Still, it is justified, because we
are not in an abstract place, instead we have concrete historical experiences.
I don't believe these laws are here to stay. But for the here and now it is
appropriate, even with laws that are untenable when examined with respect to
their legality, to state: Starting here, we have barriers and fences and this
is not a joking matter".

Now we all know: The persecution of revisionist researchers
is not legal, because the laws made for persons with unpopular opinions is
judicial nonsense. Instead, alleged "Historical experiences" are the
justification, why an open debate about those historical experiences will not be
allowed. In other words:

The party is always right.

If one thinks it is not, see #1.

Our Minister of justice, Dr. Eduard Schmidt-Jortzig, on March
10. 1996 in an interview on Ruge, 3-Sat, admitted to the violation of human
rights and the principals of a constitutional society when he remarked:[84]

"Our view of human rights is indeed different than
that of the USA, you know it and alluded to it already. We will, and I find
this uncomfortable, shortly receive, through the USA, because of our
punishment of Holocaust deniers, a, well, not indictment, but let me say, a
formal reprimand from the United Nations because of the way we restrict
freedom of opinion."

This implies, the German Republic is registered by the UN as
a nation, where differences of opinion are depressed, in fact human rights are
abused.

The leading Human Rights Organizations are of the same
opinion. When, for instance, Amnesty International, petitioning for freedom of
opinion, showed the picture of Thies Christophersen, a Holocaust revisionist,
fleeing from German authorities, one must view this as a direct accusation of
the German Republic, because even the opinion of revisionists is protected under
Article 19 of the UN human Rights Charta. Save for one article in the leftist taz, Dec.12.1995, the German press ignored this, even though it should be in the
forefront, defending freedom of opinion.

The second largest Human Rights Organization, Human Rights
Watch, remarked in a press relies a few month ago, it's viewing with concern
the persecution of persons, classified as right wing, especially in the German
sphere of influence[85]

Is our judiciary not uncomfortable, when listening to the
speech of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of the US president, at the World
Women Day in Peking:

"Freedom means the right of open assembly, of open
discussion and permission to organize, also, respect for the opinions of
those, which differs from that of the government. As well, peoples should not
be taken from their loved ones, incarcerated and mistreated or be deprived of
there freedom and dignity because they voiced their opinions in a peaceful
way." [86]

And how does our judiciary feel, when listening to the words
of the President of the Republic, who, when awarding the peace award from the
German Publishers to Mrs. Prof. Schimmel, stated (quoted from FAZ,
16.10.1995):

"When we enter into a dialogue with others, we affix a
few essentials, which are not negotiable. Included in them is freedom of
speech, which implies, nobody should suffer because of their conviction. A
long, often bloody history, here in Europe, has taught us that those rights
can never be disposed of".

Are all of these empty words? Or do they apply only to those,
who please the mighty? Any dictatorship fulfills the criterion of this kind of
freedom of speech.

Notes

A preamble of this essay was produced in the spring of 1995, during the
court case against Germar Rudolf because of the theft of a copy, of the
Germar analysis, by Major General Remers, ret. It was meant to be included
in the closing statements in this case, but was only partially repeated. The
slightly revised version, with no relation to the above case adding the
first chapter, was produced November 1995. The first portion of the oldest
version up to "Prof. Wolfgang Benz" was published in Sleipnir,
issue 1/1996, pages 6-8 and issue 2/1996, pages 23-27.( Verlag der Freunde,
P.O. box 35 02 64, 10211 Berlin)

Gerd Honsik told me, there is documented proof the expert analyst, Prof.
Jagschitz, was given the records of his witness statement for correction.
Picture this: A witness is later allowed to "correct" his
statement! The records itself shows gaps in the proceedings, for instance,
there are no answers to questions asked by the accused, instead, a whole new
line of deliberation subjects are discussed.

The Anti Defamation League is a Jewish organization, which fights, amongst
other things, Antisemitism and Revisionism. Critics, however, state, it uses
defamation as a means to achieve its aim.

Rio Publishers, Zürich 1994:
Page 92:" With the fanatical energy of a convert he (Prof. Harry Elmer
Barnes) switched over to the isolationist, German friendly side of the
political spectrum and remained there to his death"
Page 107: " The roots of Barnes views about the Holocaust, as well as
his attitude towards Israel, go beyond his inveterate love for anything
German and his revisionist outlook on history, they are to be found in his
Anti-Semitism"
Page 111: "He (Prof. Austin J. App) had a distinct adoration for
Germans and Nazi Germany".
Page 112: "Barnes loved the Germans, but was no Fascist".
Page 157: "In spite of his apparent impartiality towards the sciences,
the traditional anti-Semitic resentments and conspiracy theories, which are
well known from Holocaust deniers pamphlets, as well as his Germanophile
behavior, dominate (Prof.ArthurR.) Butz' book".
Page 170: "Most, (Historians) that knew os its existence (that of the
Institute for Historical Review) dismissed it as an Hotbed for Holocaust
deniers, Neo-Nazis, Germanophiles, right wing extremists, Anti-Semitics,
Racists and believers in conspiracies".

Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz:Technique and Operation of the Gaschambers,
Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989

Regarding the accuracy of my analysis, the Director of the Dutch
Anne-Frank-Foundation, Hans Westra, made the following statements on Belgian
TV.:
Hans Westra: "A much more dangerous undertaking is the Rudolf analysis.
It was produced at the Siegfried Verbeke court case in Den Haag. Rudolf is a
young scientist, who in an excellent piece of work, complete with charts,
graphics etc., is trying to prove, the Gas-Chambers where a technical
impossibility."
Reporter:"And, are the scientific Analysis accurate ?"
H. Westra: Those scientific analysis are perfect. What can not be
ascertained is, how this Rudolf prepared them, how he acquired the samples.
The samples where submitted to a distinguished laboratory with false
data."
BRT 1 (Belgian TV) Panorama, April 27. 1995
My comments: With "false data" he obviously means that I left the
Fresenius Institute about the origins of the samples in the dark, to assure
an unbiased chemical analysis. This is common practice in the analytic. If
there are doubts about my statement, and that of witnesses, as to the origin
of the samples, I invite anyone to take there own and have them analyzed.
Otherwise, I think my work, because of the references, can be reproduced by
any professional. However, if Mr. Westra by "false data" is
alluding to the matter that I used the letterhead of my employer, at that
time, without his knowledge, when sending the Fresenius Institute a follow
up sample, then this could only be considered an incorrectness towards my
former employer, but it is irrelevant in regards to the Quality of my work
and would not hinder any attempt to copy same. Compare: Wilhelm Schlesiger,
Der Fall Rudolf (The Rudolf case), Cromwell, Brighton 1994; now: VHO,
Postbus 46, B-2600 Berchem 1 (Belgium)

The annotations placed here in the summary, regarding the behavior of a
few persons on the Max-Plank Institute in Stuttgart, have been omitted. They
have been published elsewhere. (Comp. W.Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf, above
Stated in note 43)

County Court Stuttgart, file # 17, 83/94. Compare the motion for prejudice
by the defense on Feb. 16. 1995, as well as the confirmation by the chief
Justice Dr. Dietmar Mayer, regarding the contents of hie question in the
official statement on Feb. 16. 1995 in the course of court proceedings.

Above stated note 34, page 16; a trial printing of the elaborations about
Hoffmann's book, mentioned below, where published under his name, in the
Deutschen Stimme 1/1996, by Günter Deckert without permission.

Compare the last potion of this paper

Above stated in note 9, page 2

Why did the heavens not darken?, Pantheon Books, New York 1988, page 362ff

Above stated in note 9, page 202. In the original French version he speaks
of 730.000 killed in the Gaschambers, Page 147

Above stated in note 34, page 150, comp. note 52

Ibid, page 153

Ibid, pages 153-157

Ibid, page 155

Ibid, page 157

Ibid, pages 160, 179

Ibid, page 161, similar on page 302ff

Ibid, page 185. Comp. the article by John C. Ball, "Air Photo
Evidence" and Herbert Tiedemann, "Babi Jar: Critical questions and
notations", in: Ernst gauss, above stated in note 10, pages 235-248, as
well as 375-399. The Ukranian Daily Kiev Evening, in an article on
Oct.20.1995, seems to agree with the research results.

Above stated in note 34, page 304

Ibid, page 305

Ibid, page 306f

Ibid, page 158

Ibid, page 302

Arraignment by the prosecution in the County Court Tübingen, file # 15js
1535/95

On July 19.1996, the same ad appeared in the Stuttgarter Nachrichten (p.6)
and the Stuttgarter Zeitung ( p.7) with 500, and on Sept.13.1996 in
Westfalen-Blatt with 1.000 signatures. To the commotion this ad caused in
the left Camp, comp. ARD-Tagesthemen (Topics of the day)on June 6.1996 and
the article "The role of the press in the Germar Rudolf case", in
this issue, page 68